26 Responses to this entry

Thankfully, with the Internet, the Cathedral is getting a Beijing Spring whether it wants one or not. It won’t be long before people start scratching their heads as to why we have philosophy departments full of Maoists.

Don’t let the *number* of idiots pick away at the veracity of your logicity. Oh it looks like a boat is going down and 100 illogical idiots and Frank are on it and there is one lifeboat for one person, I wonder who should be in that boat?

Closure of discourse and action under logicality, in other words unhypocritical public speech, is an unaffordable luxury to most — which makes illogicality definitively not-idiotic for them — I understand. I also understand why you would falsely attribute to me, the assumption that ‘illogical=idiot’, as it’s (the assumption, not the attribution) a common mistake among unsophisticated autists — which is to say, it’s characteristic of the pupal autist.

Should. Hmm. You and Erebus share that belief and you are both more logical than others. Does logicity entail the eschewal of should?

You know when you repeat a word so many times that it loses its meaning? Should should should should should shoudjls houdhosudihjskdho shoudls hsoud shoudl shoudk. I probably won’t make much headway in a forum geared toward the satirization of anti-exploitationism but I really have no idea how logic and morality can be separated. I go back to my Koran-like fixation of the tripling of the good the beautiful the true. If you place one higher than the other, the other two have their dissent. For instance, when I ask Is it moral to be logical? do you feel the remotest warmth? I don’t know if warmth is right or not but I do feel it when I wonder about this question. Then Truth can ask, Is it true that you believe in the good? I.e. Is it *true* that the good has a say over the true? etc. Abstractions aside, you’re telling me that if it’s your life or a nimrod’s welp nothing really matters so?

Frank Reply:August 2nd, 2017 at 7:03 am

>I really have no idea how logic and morality can be separated.
Morality is logic applied to cooperation, namely, it is the logic of cooperation.

>Is it moral to be logical?
This is ambiguous. Is it moral to utter blatantly illogical testimonies in the commons? Is it moral to utter insidiously illogical testimonies in the commons? In other words, does one impose costs on others’ demonstrated property when one lies in public? Since informational commons is an existential condition of a polity, one cannot pollute it and and not impose costs on others’ property at the same time.

Is it moral to utter illogical testimonies outside commons (in private)? Does one impose costs on others’ property? (You might be imposing involuntary costs on me by offloading the cost of due diligence onto me, or I might be volunteering my time to help you)

Thus, morality, when operationalized, is a calculus of state change in fully accounted property (including negative externalities).

You have, without my permission, harvested this apple tree in which I’ve been investing time and resources for the past couple of years with the intention of earning interest; which means you’ve imposed costs on me; which means we’re no longer cooperating; which brings us to the question: what are you going to do to restore reciprocity so that me an my kin don’t kill you and your kin, steal your shit, and rape your women?

>Does logicity entail the eschewal of should?
Logic (naming, categorical, and set consistency) alone is not enough. It’s just one of the requirements for warrantying your testimony against fraudulence. Operationalization (existential consistency, or correspondence in action) is what kills ‘should’:

‘Should’ can be used to express causal necessity: “You should start saving money if you want to be able to afford that house.”
It can be used as an implicit threat: “You should reimburse me (or else).”
It can be used as a tool to pwn minds and extract rents from them by appealing to transcendent values or emotions: “Health care should be a basic human right. We should work to achieve more equality. We should end poverty.”

>I.e. Is it *true* that the good has a say over the true?
I translate this as “how do we decide what to do next from what we know to be true?”. How do we decide whether to commit suicide or not? It’s undecidable. All we know is, it is necessary for living things to accumulate capital (all kinds) and that an improvement in the state of capital is objectively preferable to the alternative when you choose to live, which is to say, it (capital accumulation) is a demonstrated good. Since in the long run suicidal preferences remove themselves, we get the immanence of Omohundro’s drives. As to the (transcendent) good, Kant killed it.

“Exploitation” is the wrong term, if we’re looking for the damage “Dengism” has done to China. I would prefer to go after the rife corruption and nepotism in the Party, at the environmental damage, and at the shoddy construction standards which might turn the area downstream of Three Gorges Dam into a literal valley of death.

I second what Rick Sean just said. If you want to argue for Dengism, don’t argue with Baizuo like @ultra_letterist. Argue instead with The Scholar’s Stage.

“Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are intersectional challenges. The intersectional justice movement should be doing everything that it can to tackle those issues and to include Jews and Jewish institutions in its advocacy work.”

Hmm. “It’s time for intersectionality to include the Jews.”

Why isn’t it “time for the Jews to include themselves into intersectionality?”

“Organizers have been touring New York City in trucks with large displays promoting their cause. They also sponsored a video advertisement that paints Israeli authorities as cruel and discriminatory and shows Orthodox protesters being beaten and arrested by Israeli police.”

Seems to me WASP culture is founded on WASPs insisting on not having their culture dictated by Rome, and from there they project and defend wasp culture to an almost ridiculous degree, throughout an empire of non wasps on which the sun never set. They even managed this most spectacularly when the ONLY person with a vote were their queens.

WASPs are reserved in many ways that are misunderstood but which proved over time to be effective. Something else is happening. What else happened between the late 1800s and the current year? WASPS and the rest of the european diaspora were asked to defend their culture by destroying their culture, so instead they chose to defend their culture and destroy their people. They seem in fact willing to defend their culture to the last man , which is of course in keeping with their culture.

What is it they are blind to? Most of us are blind to the others realities, we simply can not conceive what it is to be a nigger, and so we can not conceive that our culture is not universally applicable; that we and it evolved for each other only. When we imposed by force niger submission we were able to have tea at polo matches from Nairobi or Bombay to the Bahamas from Newfoundland to the Faulklands.We were able to make niggers wear grey flannel shorts and white knee socks and wogs to die for the queen. But then something began to infect our media academia politics etc. The meme was that wogs, kafirs, jews, amerindians etc were exactly like us and that not only could we teach them tricks like playing cricket we could allow them to vote, to marry our children, to move to our countries.

The altright is doing exactly what the neoreactionaries and the liberal-tarians are doing, as you put it accepting the way things turned out and trying to find a work around. Altright anti individuals to the extent its a thing is picked up from neo reaction, their lack of militant capitalism is not because they’re crypto nazis though a few are, but mostly because what capitalism has become- global strip mining of white nations “profits” divided between niggers, jews and quisling wasps. You can beat this holiness signaling puritan cathedral drum till the conversion of the jews Land but its bullshit It was all working fine women had high status for millennia, we had no problem with genocide forever, until the fucking jews were allowed to participate in polite society and began their cultural marxism campaign.W had no defence for that, to begin with we did not understand we were being attacked from without because jews pass, not simply physically,but intellectually they get us. And they got how we could be lifted from our own petard they got how the process would present us with an impossible choice reject the foundation of our evolutionary culture our principles or die with a stiff upper lip. They got how our DNA requires we hold to our principal because that’s been our edge. The alt right has at least gotten that far. But not far enough.

Nothing short of almost total expulsion of all non whites is gong to work. We simply can not adapt to nigger systems of social organization and our system simply can not tolerate tribalism from within.

Now that I read the wiki article of the book Psycho there are many intricacies of Land’s metaphor I’m trying to wrap my head around. I read it before with a vague impression of the movie mixed with Ellis’s novel.

I told a black guy today that I’m going to buy a voodoo book and he said Be careful man some go to the dark side and never come back. I laughed anxiously. I guess one of my fixed ideas (at least I admit mine, fuckers) is that in order to understand Heaven one must understand Hell, so I’m going to go ahead and go down that rabbit hole anyway. Land should do youtube series on Crowley’s 777; no way can trigger the “ruling elite” like teaching neo-nazis qabbala. It is not too late to make 2017 the year of trolling dangerously.

Yes wag I thnk he starts these essays when he gets an idea for a really shocking metaphor then he a grafts on a bizarre theory and off we go on our little scifi adventure. Its enthralling until you pull back and realize its make believe.
And since when are americans and british interchangeable cultures, so what the puritans exited built the cathedral then repatriated it back to england. When was this when FDR enforcing puritanism on churchill? who the most famous american commie? John reed ? and who does he meet when he he gets to harvard in 1906 walter lippmann head of the socialist club. And where does he go spreading his infection from there to just about every waspy artist and intellectual of the proceeding decades, and hows that turn out by the 40s updike I think it was is commenting how jewy you have to be to be an intellectual in ny and how wonderful that is. Reed was one of thousands of hayseeds bright guys that got infected by intellectual jews been 1850 and 1950 when they left the farms and went to places like NY chicago boston minneapolis and LA. or university theatre newspaper etc.I know this because i grew up in an artsy intellectual NYC family that was soaked in these left wing jews, they were funny smart talented you couldn’t help liking most of them but after enough decades you begin to notice things things that dont make sense until your political perspective really changes enough. I dont dislike jews i actually like them a lot most of my nyc friends are jews I just know what I know. wasps didnt up and decide to commit suicide they were gaslit

I wanted to mention its little remarked upon that no one has ever seen David Byrne and Nick Land in the same place at the same time, In fact they can not even be convincingly documented to be in two different place at the same time. Its entirely possible neo reaction is performance art.